Wealthy Child Molester Gets Probation, Wouldn't Fare Well In Prison

[DubaiSis]

When my brother was (unjustly) accused of sexual assault, his lawyer said, first thing to know is your marriage is over and... everything after that didn't matter to him. When talking to the social worker to work through his near nervous breakdown over it, she said she knew right away he was innocent. She said when the accused says "what do I do to keep my family together" they're innocent. When they say "what do I do to stay out of jail" they are guilty. Of course, we don't know if the guy in this case asked this question, made more complicated (and yet LESS complicated) if the divorce proceedings came first and the accusations second. And, by the way, his marriage wasn't over, and is still intact 20 years later. His daughter got over being batshit crazy and is now a good daughter and mother.

[DrPhil]

I'm glad his marriage wasn't over.

I disagree with the social worker's "what do I do to keep my family together" and "what do I do to stay out of jail" rule. People who are accused of crimes say all sorts of things and that pertains to both the innocent and the guilty. That's one reason the legal system does not solely or primarily rely on hunches and "if the person says this" rules.

There are people who professionally and personally believe the cons of plea bargaining far outweigh the pros. As for this thread, the question I have been wondering is what are the criteria for when/why the general sentiment/general discourse should hold onto potential innocence even after a guilty verdict?

[DubaiSis]

You're right on the above. In his case she was right, but she was also a family friend so may not have been perfectly unbiased in her judgement. On the other hand, knowing my brother since birth, I think she knew he was not capable of that level of guile. But yes, I'm sure she wouldn't get on the stand and say she absolutely knows the truth because of this type of statement. Generalizations that make her feel comfortable in her approach to counseling doesn't mean undeniable truth.

And you're also right that we are still discussing this as "innocent until proven guilty." He was proven guilty so now there is/should be no presumption of innocence. But we know innocent people are declared guilty every day, which rounds us back to the top again. I know I am too righteously indignant to roll over, and I'd like to think that would apply to threat of jail, but who knows what I would do when confronted with this question in real life. In my brother's case, the whole mess fell apart in less than 2 weeks so he didn't have to face this either.

[DubaiSis]

The point of guilty verdicts is to be able to mete out punishment. Our justice system is good but in no way perfect. So short of insisting that people actually, dare I say it, do the right thing, what can you do beyond argue about it? Hopefully you keep up the good fight, hold judges to account for bad decisions when you think they've occurred, and actually serve on juries when you're called. What else can we do? OK, raise kids to be good people and good citizens, not watch news that is known to be ridiculously flawed, but watch more that is known to be more accurate...

[DrPhil]

LOL. I was more wondering when it is appropriate to use the "sometimes a guilty verdict doesn't mean guilty" argument. That argument is definitely not used across crimes and across demographics.

I can think of plenty of times when someone is found guilty, some people are still arguing the person's innocence, and the response is to either find the resources to appeal or get over it.

[AGDee]

This article gives a lot more detail about all of it-
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...=2014303190072

This includes information that he admitted to molesting his son as well, after he was already on probation from the plea bargain he accepted for the original charges of molesting his daughter.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AGDee

This article gives a lot more detail about all of it-
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...=2014303190072

This includes information that he admitted to molesting his son as well, after he was already on probation from the plea bargain he accepted for the original charges of molesting his daughter.

Based on that, I'm still not sure. The daughter, now eleven claims she was abused when she was three. At that age, I don't see how she can have a reliable memory of what happened when she was that age and as to any medical evidence, a lot happens to a body between the ages of 3 and 11, so if there was any medical evidence, its cause could never be traced to abuse by her father.

As to the polygraph, pass or fail, is generally inadmissible, so the court would still have to rely on the testimony of a very young child, or an 11 year old talking about her memories from when she was 3 which would be destroyed by anyone on cross examination. I can understand why the plea was offered.

It also looks like the ex is hoping for big money here. It would appear they've hired PR people (or maybe their law firm has a PR firm on retainer) and are attempting to contaminate the jury pool.

I'm simply amazed he didn't contact a lawyer before volunteering for a lie detector test. That's just dumb. That at least shows he was either extremely arrogant in that he thought he could beat the thing or dumb as rocks.

[DrPhil]

What is the earliest age of memory for most people, especially for allegedly traumatic events? I remember both good and bad things from when I was in preschool (4) and elementary school (5). I'm almost 40.

Is it unreasonable for an 11 year old to remember something from the age of 3? Not if grown adults can remember something from preschool and elementary school.

The issue would be having a detailed memory that includes the full context and correct interpretation/translation of events.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

What is the earliest age of memory for most people, especially for allegedly traumatic events? I remember both good and bad things from when I was in preschool (4) and elementary school (5). I'm almost 40.

Is it unreasonable for an 11 year old to remember something from the age of 3? Not if grown adults can remember something from preschool and elementary school.

The issue would be having a detailed memory that includes the full context and correct interpretation/translation of events.

The defendant only needs reasonable doubt. In the criminal context. In the civil context, the burden will be much lower, but still, there are going to be a number of barriers to the plaintiff before this 11 year old would be allowed to testify.

I don't think she'll really need to though, the civil trial will be about damages. His defense at this point can't be "I didn't do it," he is going to have to say, "I did it, but she shouldn't be paid because _____."

I can't imagine many jurors will find him persuasive.

[DrPhil]

Yes, I know.

DuBaiSis and I are interested in the ability or inability of people to accurately remember things from as young as 3.

[WhiteRose1912]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

What is the earliest age of memory for most people, especially for allegedly traumatic events?

Psychologists generally agree on 3 years.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by WhiteRose1912

Psychologists generally agree on 3 years.

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Memories at those young ages are very susceptible to modification.

I've seen 4 year olds totally convinced that their father molested them. Fortuanately, in those cases, the forensic interview ruled it out. That doesn't mean that a well-researched parent couldn't train the kid up well enough to pass the interview.

Yes, I know. Hence....

Originally Posted by DrPhil

The issue would be having a detailed memory that includes the full context and correct interpretation/translation of events.

Originally Posted by DuBaiSis

This is a perfect example of how a memory can be completely wrong. I remember it plain as day, but it was in fact my brother's birthday they were celebrating, which is only a few days after mine. It still would have been traumatic for a 2 year old and understanding the difference between MY cake and his would be lost on a 2 year old. And wrong.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

What is the earliest age of memory for most people, especially for allegedly traumatic events? I remember both good and bad things from when I was in preschool (4) and elementary school (5). I'm almost 40.

Is it unreasonable for an 11 year old to remember something from the age of 3? Not if grown adults can remember something from preschool and elementary school.

The issue would be having a detailed memory that includes the full context and correct interpretation/translation of events.

Memories at those young ages are very susceptible to modification.

http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftu...cles/sciam.htm

I've seen 4 year olds totally convinced that their father molested them. Fortuanately, in those cases, the forensic interview ruled it out. That doesn't mean that a well-researched parent couldn't train the kid up well enough to pass the interview.

[DubaiSis]

I have memory of falling off a bicycle (actually my memory is of waking up indoors after falling off my bike in the street) at around 4. I also have a memory at age 2 of my family eating my birthday cake while I was in bed with the mumps. This is a perfect example of how a memory can be completely wrong. I remember it plain as day, but it was in fact my brother's birthday they were celebrating, which is only a few days after mine. It still would have been traumatic for a 2 year old and understanding the difference between MY cake and his would be lost on a 2 year old. And wrong.

[MaryPoppins]

I believe I heard that the Defendant in this case has another child, male, that has also alleged sexual abuse at the hands of the father. I think it was a half sibling to the victim in this case.